Jump to content
Han

Game version 3.008 discussion: Damage model update, fixes and improvements

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

The big fireballs are due to ignition of B17s outer wing fueltanks. You can see them flame up both on right and left wing of the plane. Without hitting the fueltanks there would have been no such big fireballs.

 

B17 fuel tanks here:

 

http://ships.bouwman.com/B17/Fuel-Oil.html

 

It is only your own guess; but, of course, feel free to express it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wonders9 said:

 

It is only your own guess; but, of course, feel free to express it.

 

You surely know better. Bring it up. We all are keen to learn of your wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Gielow said:

I am having sometimes a shaking bombsight bug now after this last patch. Anyone else has experienced it??

Yeah I had this before the patch as well.

 

I was setting up my sights while the plane was starting up and it just started jerking violently. Only in view and automatic mode though.

 

Still, really annoying. Restarted the game and issue was gone as far as I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, II./JG1_EmerlistDavjack said:

 

 

Derp, that's because I had a major brain stoppage.  There is no TrackIR field lol.  It's added under force feedback.   

 

[KEY = force_feedback]
    amplitude = 1.00000
    enabled = 1
    force = 1.00000
    update_freq = 10.000000 
[END]

Okay. Thanks for the reply. I am still trying to clarify that this is related to TrackIR as a "feedback". 

The release notes mentioned ffb and trackir and I would like to experiment with a bit of a stutter issue related to trackir and want to know I am adding viable lines. 

 

"Users who encountered stutters using Microsoft Force Feedback joysticks and TrackIR now have an option to tune FFB effect polling frequency using the additional setting in startup.cfg file"

 

Could a Dev. Please clafify the procedure to adjust frequency for TrackIR? It seems all mention is regarding FFB and not specific to TrackIR. Thanks. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wonders9 said:

 

It is only your own guess; but, of course, feel free to express it.

 

I think they are more popularly known as 'Tokyo Tanks'.  Sounds like a pretty good guess to me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More I fly I really like the new patch.

Need to start carrer again with those changes. Changes to the AI are visible and after many qmb mission i like the new dm model.  only "drawback" for me are the AI gunners now.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a quick test in QM: after new patch:

 

mk108 vs lagg3: an average of 3 shots to take down the aircraft controlled by the ia 

mk108 vs P40: an average of 3 shots to take down the aircraft controlled by the ia

37mm AP ammo vs P40 an average of 3/4 shots to take down the aircraft controlled by the ia

G14 mw50 not fixed after months

A8 overheat not fixed after months

 

🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 150GCT_Pan said:

a quick test in QM: after new patch:

 

mk108 vs lagg3: an average of 3 shots to take down the aircraft controlled by the ia 

mk108 vs P40: an average of 3 shots to take down the aircraft controlled by the ia

37mm AP ammo vs P40 an average of 3/4 shots to take down the aircraft controlled by the ia

G14 mw50 not fixed after months

A8 overheat not fixed after months

 

🤔

 

What part of "no more test posts in this thread" is so hard to understand?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello gentlemen,

after updating to latest patch, I am getting: no connection to master server quote and if I try to play offline, the game asks me to update. Any ideas how to fix this please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

You surely know better. Bring it up. We all are keen to learn of your wisdom.

 

I know someone who does, but he has no free time now.

 

However, there are plenty of videos in which target aircraft fuel tank explosion is recorded, e.g.:

 

12-09_00-29_001.png

 

I will stop discussing it, for fear that this thread will get locked.

 

Edited by wonders9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, wonders9 said:

 

I know someone who does, but he has no free time now.

 

However, there are plenty of videos in which target aircraft fuel tank explosion is recorded, e.g.:

 

12-09_00-29_001.png

 

I will stop discussing it, for fear that this thread will get locked.

 

 

Thanks! Let´s continue that discussion here if you like:

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost everybody is talking about better damage model (what I think is actually true), but it is worthless if planes don't behave regarding to damage taken. Damaged planes are dogfighting and high G maneuvering like without damage. I think it really has to be fixed if we want to use this new damage model.. Otherwise we can just put a health bar over each aircraft and travel back in time 15 years... Sorry for this post but I'm pretty frustrated after 2 days of flying with this new patch where cheesy russians are outmaneuvering me in high G turns ... 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, klobuk said:

Almost everybody is talking about better damage model (what I think is actually true), but it is worthless if planes don't behave regarding to damage taken. Damaged planes are dogfighting and high G maneuvering like without damage. I think it really has to be fixed if we want to use this new damage model.. Otherwise we can just put a health bar over each aircraft and travel back in time 15 years... Sorry for this post but I'm pretty frustrated after 2 days of flying with this new patch where cheesy russians are outmaneuvering me in high G turns ... 

True, was trying DF in QMB against Yak 1b, this thing was eating almost all of my G4s ammo, not giving a crap aabout the 20mm cannon and still turning and fighting like a young gazelle. When previous DM sometimes felt like throwing cannonballs (30mm against P47) on paperplanes, the new is kind of the opposite when  a Yak 1b becomes a Il2

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, klobuk said:

Almost everybody is talking about better damage model (what I think is actually true), but it is worthless if planes don't behave regarding to damage taken. Damaged planes are dogfighting and high G maneuvering like without damage. I think it really has to be fixed if we want to use this new damage model.. Otherwise we can just put a health bar over each aircraft and travel back in time 15 years... Sorry for this post but I'm pretty frustrated after 2 days of flying with this new patch where cheesy russians are outmaneuvering me in high G turns ... 

 

Well, I'm not sure what you observed, but what I can say or confirm is, that damage do actually influence the behavior of your plane - it is not that maneuverable as before

getting hits. And as one of those cheesy Russian pilots, I can tell you that inflicted damage does change the flight behavior and you're not able to do what you can when

your plane is not damaged.

 

Btw. I do - on the other hand - observer very often, that if someone is complaining about damage model, flight behavior or weapons strength, they very often come from

the German "Hanswurst" fraction!

Edited by -IRRE-Therion
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the damage model be different on ai vs human pilot. I often fly IL 2 ,and I often get shot down at first pass. Referring to online event fnbf before patch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 11:51 PM, LeLv30_Redwing said:

 

It won't work, they still hover. At least unlocking the Y-axis would to the trick. It is a small problem and I see how easily it gets buried under the discussion of wings falling off / being glued on and 30mm killing everything / killing nothing. All servers would benefit and therefore players too if mission builders would have these simple objects in use.

I see the surface you are trying to position the boxes has a slope. Have you also tried to have the boxes positioned on a fully flat surface. Does it work better then? Have you tried on the water ?

Edited by IckyATLAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 7:31 AM, SShrike said:

 

 

On 12/8/2018 at 7:31 AM, SShrike said:

The release notes mentioned ffb and trackir and I would like to experiment with a bit of a stutter issue related to trackir and want to know I am adding viable lines. 

 

"Users who encountered stutters using Microsoft Force Feedback joysticks and TrackIR now have an option to tune FFB effect polling frequency using the additional setting in startup.cfg file"

 

Could a Dev. Please clafify the procedure to adjust frequency for TrackIR? It seems all mention is regarding FFB and not specific to TrackIR. Thanks. 

 

I just lately found that note, was very happy to know the devs had worked on it (many players complain about that quite huge prob) and even if most of my own problems are more or less gone now, I wanted to try that new setting possibility. So I opened that startup.cfg file to find that it was set to 10.000000 yet... 🤨

 

I don't understand. Could someone enlighten us plz ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I can get over this "improved" DM, but It's just so frustrating. Every day I hate it even more. mk 108 shouldn't be this weak. Please give us an option to go back to original DM atleast in single player.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -IRRE-Therion said:

 

Well, I'm not sure what you observed, but what I can say or confirm is, that damage do actually influence the behavior of your plane - it is not that maneuverable as before

getting hits. And as one of those cheesy Russian pilots, I can tell you that inflicted damage does change the flight behavior and you're not able to do what you can when

your plane is not damaged.

 

Btw. I do - on the other hand - observer very often, that if someone is complaining about damage model, flight behavior or weapons strength, they very often come from

the German "Hanswurst" fraction!

I don't want to argue with you because it won't lead anywhere.... I can tell you just (like you can see in multiple charts here on forum) that in reality maneuverability of damaged aircraft was dramatically affected.. Not just "it is not that maneuverable as before getting hits." 😄  Yak-1b or La-5 can maneuver with me in high G maneuvers and keep speed also after several 8mm and  20mm hits!!! This is simply ridiculous and I'm not the only one who can see this... On that part that you see always complaining Axis players... Well... Axis have mostly fighters that are good at energy fighting.. In reality if pilot damaged enemy's aircraft after first BnZ it was after that an easy pray... with this patch I see cheesy aircrafts smoking like on aviation day but they can perform high G maneuvers and keep top speed without any problems... So if you are unlucky and didn't finished that guy on your first pass you don't have to bother to chase him  bacause he will outmaneuver you for sure...  As I said before.. I'm perfectly OK with new damage model but damaged aircraft characteristics have to be corrected as well as 30 mils.. but I think you disagree also with that 😄 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, klobuk said:

I don't want to argue with you because it won't lead anywhere.... I can tell you just (like you can see in multiple charts here on forum) that in reality maneuverability of damaged aircraft was dramatically affected.. Not just "it is not that maneuverable as before getting hits." 😄  Yak-1b or La-5 can maneuver with me in high G maneuvers and keep speed also after several 8mm and  20mm hits!!! This is simply ridiculous and I'm not the only one who can see this... On that part that you see always complaining Axis players... Well... Axis have mostly fighters that are good at energy fighting.. In reality if pilot damaged enemy's aircraft after first BnZ it was after that an easy pray... with this patch I see cheesy aircrafts smoking like on aviation day but they can perform high G maneuvers and keep top speed without any problems... So if you are unlucky and didn't finished that guy on your first pass you don't have to bother to chase him  bacause he will outmaneuver you for sure...  As I said before.. I'm perfectly OK with new damage model but damaged aircraft characteristics have to be corrected as well as 30 mils.. but I think you disagree also with that 😄 

This would be very nice if implemented, I returned from a sortie in TAW in a 109 full of holes, wind noise thru the holes in the windshield too, but plane was performing normally. At least now you can get holes and return to base, so DM is moving in the right direction, hope next step is having some penalty in the flight model when your plane structure is full of holes and damaged.

 

In the past this was not a concern, wing came off so plane went down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

I see the surface you are trying to position the boxes has a slope. Have you also tried to have the boxes positioned on a fully flat surface. Does it work better then? Have you tried on the water ?

 

Listen, those boxes are not coming down, however you try. They are intented to be used on top of port objects (piers) and that limits their use considerably. Even experienced mission builders way more familiar with the editor than me have not found way around this, so hopefully devs get so annoyed with me that they give us opportunity to use them also on the ground. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear developers, thank you for the improvements in the simulator update.
I will not talk about the damage model.
But I must say that in the model of bf109 k4 has an error in the placement of the antenna, would have to be closer to the cockpit or place an antenna that also carried and that would also serve to simulate the G-10.
I know that you will have other priorities, I hope that in the future it will be fixed.
Thanks for your great work
regards

 

Bf109-K-3-Seiten-neu.jpg

230d7599a1efc04f8c7f56ebb714010d.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LeLv30_Redwing said:

 

Listen, those boxes are not coming down, however you try. They are intented to be used on top of port objects (piers) and that limits their use considerably. Even experienced mission builders way more familiar with the editor than me have not found way around this, so hopefully devs get so annoyed with me that they give us opportunity to use them also on the ground. 

 

This is correct. They are raised because they are meant to be shown on top of the ports which are not solid objects, so they just float at the height you would see the ports.

 

Maybe they can just make a copy of it and remove the height limitations so we can use both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

Can the damage model be different on ai vs human pilot. 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

When is the high alt performance of all radials going to be fixed please?

 

A defining characteristic of radials is that they suck at altitude without supplemental equipment.

 

What issue are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LeLv30_Redwing said:

 

Listen, those boxes are not coming down, however you try. They are intented to be used on top of port objects (piers) and that limits their use considerably. Even experienced mission builders way more familiar with the editor than me have not found way around this, so hopefully devs get so annoyed with me that they give us opportunity to use them also on the ground. 

I agree. I tried hard in the editor, but no way. Hope the devs will correct this one day.

Anyway the complete library is way smaller than the one that came with the former IL2 editor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GridiroN said:

 

A defining characteristic of radials is that they suck at altitude without supplemental equipment.

 

What issue are you referring to?

190 A3's and LA5 FN's high alt performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LLv24_Zami said:

No.

 

Ok Thanks, Could ai pilot keep a damaged plane flying longer? Personally I feel it is oposite. But spenning years in the recieving end flying IL 2  and PE 2 I simply do not have the same experience when it come to how hard they are to shoot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CSAF-D3adCZE said:

190 A3's and LA5 FN's high alt performance.

But those aren't really good high altitude performers irl. If they are overperforming in-game then I agree they should be fixed, I just don't have enough experience with them up high to make a judgment on this though.

 

One thing that does need to be worked on is the DM for all engines and especially radials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

But those aren't really good high altitude performers irl. If they are overperforming in-game then I agree they should be fixed, I just don't have enough experience with them up high to make a judgment on this though.

 

One thing that does need to be worked on is the DM for all engines and especially radials.

I want to run few tests in upcoming weeks because I am really bugged about that LA5FN sticking with my K4 at 11.5km altitude. Hopefully this will show us the answer :) So far I have read that LA5FN and A3 are hugely overperforming at high alts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GridiroN said:

 

A defining characteristic of radials is that they suck at altitude without supplemental equipment.

 

What issue are you referring to?

 

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

But those aren't really good high altitude performers irl. If they are overperforming in-game then I agree they should be fixed, I just don't have enough experience with them up high to make a judgment on this though.

 

One thing that does need to be worked on is the DM for all engines and especially radials.

 

check in fm discasions Performance at high altitudes of 10000m, radial engines topic, its from 3 months ago so who knows maybe things are differant now with all new updates, but i offten see early 190s up high flying like they are born to be high alt interceptors :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2018 at 10:23 PM, coconut said:

I'm also disappointed that the old behaviour of retriggering a timer has changed. In the past, triggering a non-deactivated timer would always (re)start it. I used this to implement non-trivial conditions such as "Spawn AI patrol when enemy close, then repeatedly try to despawn it after 1 min unless there is still an enemy nearby". It would not be too hard to change it to use the new timer reset mechanism, but it does not work. Old trick no longer works, new mechanism doesn't work yet. I'll figure something out, but it will make the logic even more complex than it was.

Can't stress enough how important this part is.

The fact that triggering a non-deactivated timer doesn't (re)start it anymore is a complete show stopper.

At the moment, it renders all missions on our FAC gameserver broken.

I'm not ready to check and touch hundreds of timers on the missions to work around this bug, especially not without knowing what further changes to this issue there will be.

I definitely vote for a quick hotfix that restores the old functionality at least.

Really, really, really...: This is a showstopper bug.

 

:drinks:

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...